<p>Saddam last killed the kurds in 1989, he wasn't going to do it again, especially in light of mounting international pressure. His cooperation according the the inspectors and UN officials was surprisingly good. The point is that Bush presumed something, was wrong, and killed thousands and lost all our credibility in the process. The fact that he is so controvertial only attests to the notion that he has been a divider, rather than the uniter he professed to be in 2000.</p>
<p>And call Kerry a flip-flopper? Where was the compassionate conservative we heard so much about in 2000. When Bush won, I thought, oh well he is probably going to be a middle of the road politician like Clinton. Yeah right! He gained political capital, totally shifted his platform, and somehow won again by scaring people into voting for him and marketing himself well.</p>
<p>El commandante,</p>
<p>Where do you get your information? What makes you say more would have died? I suppose you could be right, but where's the premise to your conclusion?</p>
<p>Did you forget that Bin Laden is still out there, El Commando? Many Americans died in 9/11 , you know. Start worrying about our main enemy- Bin Laden. I noticed that you did not mention anything about him. This man is still alive and is threatening the attack America again. What do you guys have to say about that?</p>
<p>We have troops in afghanistan right now looking for him but hes prob not even there any more.....What makes me say more would have died is not just because he gassed the kurds.....there is a video somewhere on the internet that shows someone in Saddams prison where he lowered the husband feet first into a wood chipper with his wife watching as he was screaming and being torn apart....Saddam might not be gassing people left and right but go take a look at the prisons there and dont tell me you think Abu Ghraib was worse....I'd rather be forced to wear womens clothing than get fingers chopped off cuz I didnt bow low enough to Saddam when he walked by.</p>
<p>what?? Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. 9/11 led to the war against terrorism. and you are still diverting attention to saddam hussein, and leaving our main enemy behind?
4 years have gone by, and beacuse of Bush's stupid leadership, Bin Laden is still roaming about freely, and is still sending threat tapes to us. I bet that he will neve be caught is Bush is still president.</p>
<p>drownindreams, you're completely right.</p>
<p>I'm applying to the three service academies and the three ROTC scholarships. I'm not even applying to Dartmouth, but a friend is. I just stopped in to see how good her chances were by comparing with other people's stats. (Just thought it'd be good to explain why the heck I'm even here)</p>
<p>If you guys don't like the military, that's fine. People suffered horribly and died to ensure that you had that right. For a bunch of prospective Dartmouth people, a lot of you just don't seem to be smart. Then again, isn't that the problem with the Ivy League and a large part of society today? People running around thinking that they understand everything and that they're smarter than everyone else, and thus they believe they are entitled to have power to govern other people's lives?</p>
<p>Oh, and I'm pretty sure a conscript army wouldn't want most of you guys, anyway. They mostly need people who are committed to causes outside themselves and causes that require sacrifice.</p>
<p>I think a lot of people on this thread have been watching a little too much Fahrenheit 9/11.</p>
<p>interesting retorts,</p>
<p>"a lot of you just don't seem to be smart."
..............eloquently put.
"there is a video somewhere on the internet that shows someone"
..............that should put it all to rest.
"I'd rather be forced to wear womens clothing"
..............wow! that's very liberal of you, how's that working out?
"people on this thread have been watching a little too much Fahrenheit 9/11."
..............yeah, but how much is too much? That should end the debate.</p>
<p>essentially, as I understand it, you're all saying, if you disagree its because you're stupid and we don't have to say why because someone died for your rights, woohoo!</p>
<p>Wisconsinguy,
I generally like your posts, but what the hell happened here: tired and nothing left but talking-points/boilerplate?</p>
<p>Seriously guys, where's the "if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists" line.</p>
<p>Slipper,</p>
<p>that's reserved for when a reactionary is about to go nuclear; although, I suspect that one or two may already be hearing the faint but persistent percussion of a count-down in their sub-conscious......8...7...6...5...</p>
<p>The Democrats brought this upon themselves by running Kerry. Its sad that the Democrats used to be the party of foreign policy. FDR, Truman, JFK, etc. were all true visionaries. I can't really say the same for Kerry and the Democrats let him get pounded by the Republicans on any international affairs/security issue.</p>
<p>I also agree with wisconsinguy, I think some of you need to lay off the Michael Moore for a while.</p>
<p>Not that I think it's actually true, just apropos to:</p>
<p>"some of you need to lay off the Michael Moore for a while."
"watching a little too much Fahrenheit 9/11."</p>
<p>Has it finally happened; have all FOX tabloid news viewers become the same person?!</p>
<p>bcp05,
however, I agree with your points about the democratic lack of vision and organization, and of course, they were rightfully pounded.</p>
<p>But come on guys, at least make your critique (?) interesting. Bring a few NEW ideas to the conversation. You may even want to address some of the facts of the war.
Was it about oil or not?
Would it be right or wrong to do it for oil? (we need oil, right)
Does the public need to have honest info in a representative democracy before going to war? or, as downindreams implies, the great unwashed just don't get it anyhow: delude them.
When you oppose a war do you oppose America per se and its troops fighting the war (should all Americans have supported the Vietnam war?)?
Is patriotism "the last refuge of the scoundrel?" or
Do you hate America when you oppose a specific political policy (say slavery, the suppression of women or the fouling of the environment)?</p>
<p>No, it wasn't a retort, just an observation. Michael Moore, like Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Al Franken, and others like them, is a wretched human being.</p>
<p>In my opinion, taking any of the above pundit's arguments at face value (which some posters are doing above) is a sure sign someone's lost the argument. I would expect a liberally-educated person to rise above such simplistic terms and research for themselves.</p>
<p>But Wisconsinguy these aren't conspiracy theories. These are raw truths. Bush was a board member of Carlyle Group. Cheney got a $36 Million payoff from Halliburton, even though HE resigned (that rarely if ever happens, usually this occurs when the CEO is let go.) These links are way to clear to just disregard. Perhaps its not conscious, but when you come from such a strongly one sided background, it tends to skew your thinking. </p>
<p>Kerry was a bad marketer, that's it.</p>
<p>oh gosh, skirbyy! people who are against the war are, in my experience, not against the sacrifice the troops are making! they disagree with the reason the troops are THERE, but are never ungrateful for the sacrifice they're making!</p>
<p>In other news...in one of the recent threat tapes Bin Laden put out, he said something about how Bush claims that Bin Laden attacked America b/c he hates freedom. Bin Laden was like, "That's not true. If it were, why didn't I attack Sweden, for example?" When i read this in the Week in Review, I actually laughed out loud...and then decided that I was going to h e l l, esp since my father walked out of the WTC about four minutes before the first plane hit, I kid you not.</p>
<p>While I am not thrilled with many of the things Bush has done/is doing, I do not think that Kerry would have done a better job foreign-policy wise. He told the public that he would reach out to the countries that Bush alienated for help - come ON. those countries would see right through that.</p>
<p>Blurinka,</p>
<p>agreed,
agreed,
agreed.
not sure about the "going to hell" thing.;)</p>
<p>Kerry would have done a much better job, as evidenced by his overwhelming support abroad. I was in Europe this past break and nearly everyone I talked to asked me how it was possible that Bush won. New leaders have an ability to be able to seperate themselves from their predecessors, especially when the international community is so strongly in their favor and views them as a savior.</p>
<p>haha well then I stand corrected. But the fact that so many people abroad believe us to be "stupid Americans" was one of the reasons I want to go into Gov/Int Rel...</p>
<p>and for all the people who are fighting over how much everyone should watch Farenheit 9/11...please understand taht, while it raises SOME valid points, much of it could be taken grossly out of context. You have to watch it having taken a salt-shaker's worth of grains of salt lol. But one of things in it ties into what I was saying earlier - the mother of the guy who died in the war, she used to hate people who were against the war, until she realized they weren't against HER SON or the other troops, just the reason that they were there. I know lots of people who disagree with the war but still slap Support Our Troops stickers on their cars. (Though that Jay Barnes guy pointed out that the troops in Iraq aren't going to see these bumper stickers, and therefore can't take heart from them lol)</p>
<p>"Kerry was a bad marketer, that's it."</p>
<p>Well you obviously know so much about the opposing party slipper but did you know Edwards was a lawyer before and he sued pharmaceutical companies and in response brought the price of medicine up yet he was talking about how we have to lower the prices and such......you think Bush and his oil ties are bad.</p>
<p>Can all you people tell me why foreign support is so important???!??!?! we dont need Canada or France or any other p**<em>y ass country on our side that will just tell us what WE should be doing....when a child gets old enough he leaves his mother when a country is strong enough it leaves its *mother</em> country.....if foreign support was so important we wouldnt have had an american revolution you idiots</p>